You *really* need to check the batteries in your sarcasm detector. Your snark alarm might need a new one as well.

My entire point was that 'way too many people hear the word 'nuclear' and assume that the world will end as soon as the flash starts to spread.
That kind of hyper-reactive hysteria makes any reasonable discussion about a very serious topic almost impossible.

I'm very well aware that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities...I'm still not sure about Nevada, though.

Nuclear weapons aren't magical devices that eliminate all life with a line of sight to the mushroom cloud. They are horribly destructive
weapons, with some really ugly after-effects, but over-stating their impact doesn't produce dramatic emphasis, it just adds an element of
hysteria.

In having picked up and listened to a text-book level 20+ hour audio book about the Manhattan Project and general atomic weapons development into
1963, that was what stood out most to me as well. The hype and hysteria leads one to believe that a nuke used in the open would be some horrible,
generation changing event by the very nature of a detonation happening.

It was a bit of a shock to hear and learn the science and real results vs. hype behind research, development and testing of the real weapons. Those
Hollywood versions are awfully scary, huh? The real ones though? Like you say, horrible beyond measure to compare to other weapons types ...but only
doomsday if used in the numbers a general global nuclear war between world powers would bring about, IMO.

Originally posted by Samuelis
I think I've seen this one around before but I still find it interesting to play with.
They should make a map showing the disaster zone from different sized comets. That would be cool.

You get to set the parameters of speed, angle of impact, composition and target composition. It will give you effects at various distances. So you
can, say, hit Springfield and see what it would feel like in Peoria.

This app drives home how our fear of these above all else makes little sense. It's my understanding (and makes sense) that a biological would be the
most deadly. It seems a chemical would be like a nuclear. Not positive on that but given recent events in syria it appears so.

Your in Michigan, I wouldn't be so glad.....to your west in N. Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming are a couple of hundred ICBM silos. Russian strategy
since the late 70s has never been to go after cities ( well, not deliberately if it could be helped), but to go after our nuclear forces. They
figured if they could "disarm" enough of our arsenal with a surprise first strike, we would realize we cant successfully hit back and we would sue
for piece instead of risking our remaining population centers.........So those missile fields would be nailed several hundred times over, and that
clouds going to move west.

Oh sure, if your city is near a base that houses strategic assets it will get hit, but the Russians have a pretty detailed calculus on how to "win"
a nuclear exchange.......

Incidentally, due to practicality and limitations of delivery systems the vast amount of deployed Russian and US nuclear weapons are between 150 and
500KT. Not saying we don't have a few sitting the Megaton range, but they really aren't that practical for numerous reasons.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.